52 comments:

I think the NR writer commits a logical error in his first sentence. It does not necessarily follow that a decent life followed by an indecent act equates to hypocrisy.

The first thing that pops to mind is a psychotic break. If provable in a court, that might even get him out of murder charges.

Second, there's the possibility of disease. One of the nicest guys I ever knew--and a lawyer at that--became a barroom brawler with the foulest mouth this side of Singapore when he began to be influenced by the onset of Alzheimer's.

As no tenet of Islam requires that you saw off the head of an estranged wife, demonstrated by the fact that most Muslims do not, in fact, saw off the head of their estranged wives, something else is going on here.

My assumption is that Mr. Hassan did, indeed, suffer some sort of break that flipped him back into a cultural (not religious) fog where cutting off his wife's head seemed appropriate.

His moderate and peaceful background would indeed serve his legal defense in the same way that any nice guy who killed his wife in a fit of passion would be served.

All that is needed to give this story legs is to tell people this guy was a Republican, contributed to Republicans or knew some Republicans.

But that apparently that is not the case. Barring that it would still gain attention of the press if this guy was for the war in Traq, or if he were trying to keep his wife from voting for a Democrat. Even if he called her a "nappy headed ho" instead of beheading her would get some coverage.

It does not necessarily follow that a decent life followed by an indecent act equates to hypocrisy.

Of course which is why Catholic priests and evangelical ministers who are caught banging thier congregations get a pass.Wait...

Considering that beheading seems to be the modus operandi of the Islamic fanatics, it certainly raises suspicion that Hassan was simply a closet Sharia adherent rather than some deranged husband who's wife kicked him to the curb.

Sorry but sawing someone's head off doesn't quite fit the bill of a fit of passion.

As no tenet of Islam requires that you saw off the head of an estranged wife, demonstrated by the fact that most Muslims do not, in fact, saw off the head of their estranged wives, something else is going on here.

Well, the NR writer, that you suggest committed an error, actually provided citation of such a tenet, that you suggest doesn't exist. Further, regardless of whether such tenet is codified by the Koran is logically irrelevant. The fact is Islamic terrorist have commonly used beheading as a means of killing people.

You claim there is no hypocrisy because of the singular event compared to a life time of acting another way. Well, his recent years has been spent trying to suggest that Islam is not at all what Islamic terrorist portray it to be. As you, suggest, Muslims don't go around beheading people, only extremist do. Well now, Mr. Hassan seems to be like the terrorist.

As for disease and psychotic breaks, they really have nothing to do with this story. Andrea Yates had a psychotic break, but she didn't behead her children. Chris Benoit had a drug induced psychotic break, but while strangling his wife and child, he left their head in place.

If Mr. Hassan has drowned his wife, strangled his wife, shot his wife, drugged his wife, or various other forms of taking her life; then yeah, not much of a story here. But as Mark Stein points out, Mr. Hassan did exactly what the Islamic Terrorist do when they kill people. That's why it is an interesting story.

When you suggest some break flipped him to a cultural fog, exactly what culture in Buffalo, NY is it common that men behead their estranged wife? I'm really curious where you see the history of that happening there, since you insist the fog was not religious.

Islam is not violated by the necessary removal of the head of someone who fights the mandatory Brainwashing of Mohammed's revelation in a cave from angels. The Head is where Wrong Thoughts come from. First you are warned,then beaten, and if your head is not Right after that, then your head must be removed like a cancer. This "citizen of Canada" was only a piece of Islamic property. That fact is not to be revealed while anyone has power left to oppose their conquest by Mohammed's revelation. The Theo VanGogh assination was for a 10 minute film exposing this ownership of women-cattle by Males in the Islamic ruled parts of the world. The truth will set those women free one day, and that's why Wrong Thoughts expressed in public(free speech) is the #1 enemy of Islam.

If we're going to pick apart the logic, then I'd have to add that Mr. Steyn is not accusing Muzzammil Hassan of hypocrisy, he's accusing him of living a lie; of being a fraud. I think that's a distinction worth making. A hypocrite fails to practice what he preaches but at least nominally believes what he preaches. I think Mr. Steyn is suggesting that Mr. Hassan didn't even believe what he preached.

As for "hypocrisy", I think Mr. Steyn is simply suggesting that that's the term the media would use if this were a Catholic pedophile scandal or somesuch. But in fact, his use of quotes suggests that the word is often misapplied in such circumstances, as it would be if it were applied here. That's probably fair, too. When people tag pedophile priests or other sex offenders with the H-word it's almost as if they consider it worse than the actual crime.

Sorry but sawing someone's head off doesn't quite fit the bill of a fit of passion.

So what's the point, that only a Muslim could behead someone over a marital spat? If this is the point being made, it is complete bullshit. In the early '90s a U.S. soldier stationed in Germany cut off the head of his wife's lover, put it in a gym bag and delivered it to her while she was in the hospital recovering from childbirth.

People do gruesome things because of failed relationships all the time. They are often the most heinous and violent crimes. To claim that this is the result of some "Islamic" cultural conditioning, is nonsense.

There are so many details as yet unknown, at least by me (up to and including whether he killed his wife by decapitation or killed her and then decapitated her; if the former, then I really don't get the 2nd-degree charge).

But heres my question: If the reports are true that there were previous acts of domestic violence (and there was a protection order), how could this be seen as a "break," in the sense we usually use that term?

For that matter, again if those reports are true, how was this man living a "decent life," whether followed, or not, by an "indecent act"?

I think more details are needed to establish the premise that this guy was moderate and peaceful ... at least in terms of his personal life and his relationship with his wife. Not to mention what precise role his religion/culture did or did not play in what he did.

Freder said So what's the point, that only a Muslim could behead someone over a marital spat? If this is the point being made, it is complete bullshit.

Don't get your panties in a twist Freder. My point is that sawing off someone's head isn't an act committed in 'a fit of passion'. That's a premeditated act that. Sure anyone could do behead but us infidels generally go for beating them to death or shooting them.

To claim that this is the result of some "Islamic" cultural conditioning, is nonsense.

Yes of course it is. A guy who is trying to convince us infidel Westerners that Muslims are a peaceful people dispatches his wife in the same manner as was David Pearl, Nick Berg and numerous others. You're right, nothing to see here, move along.

Yes of course it is. A guy who is trying to convince us infidel Westerners that Muslims are a peaceful people dispatches his wife in the same manner as was David Pearl, Nick Berg and numerous others. You're right, nothing to see here, move along.

Gee, the French routinely beheaded people well into the twentieth century, does that mean that your panties would be in a wad if this guy was French and you would decry the sad state of French culture.

In my neck of the woods, divorce is not unusual, but spousal murder is rare. Spousal murder with dismemberment is even rarer and usually guarantees a few days of tabloid coverage. The news hasn't been suppressed but it also has not been given the screaming headlines it merits.....In Afghanistan they throw acid in the faces of young girls for the crime of going to school. In Hollywood they make movies about the unspeakable evil of rendition....This crime begs for a Valerie Bertinelli movie of the week, but next week it will all be down the memory hole.

Gee, the French routinely beheaded people well into the twentieth century, does that mean that your panties would be in a wad if this guy was French and you would decry the sad state of French culture.

Well I guess if his name was Francios and he dragged in a guillotine to do the task, yes I think perhaps you'd have a point. Then again it's been over 30 years since France executed someone and it's been oh, what two weeks since that Polish engineer had his head sawed off by his Islamofascist captors.

Freder, if you want to think this was your usual dispatching of a problem wife, that's fine with me. You've come to the defense of any critic of Islam or Muslims in the past so I don't expect you to stop now. I guess if they need to do something really henious like scream Death to the Jews you'd rank them up there with Cedar.

Freder, if you want to think this was your usual dispatching of a problem wife, that's fine with me. You've come to the defense of any critic of Islam or Muslims in the past so I don't expect you to stop now. I guess if they need to do something really henious like scream Death to the Jews you'd rank them up there with Cedar.

I never said it was a usual dispatching, in fact I think I used the word "heinous" to describe the crime. As usual you ignore my point to claim that I am a lover of terrorists.

What I am saying is that to claim that this crime is because of Islam is like condemning all white people because of what Cedarford writes.

I never said it was a usual dispatching, in fact I think I used the word "heinous" to describe the crime.

I never said you did call it a usual crime. Whether you believe it or not, beheading an estranged spouse is pretty rare in the US.

As usual you ignore my point to claim that I am a lover of terrorists.

Actually I claimed you never miss a chance to defend Islam or Muslims.

What I am saying is that to claim that this crime is because of Islam is like condemning all white people because of what Cedarford writes.

If that's what gets you through the day then fine. When the preferred method of execution by Islamofascists is severing the infidel's head and this guy who happens to be a Muslim hacks off his wife's head I tend to go with the principle of Occam's Razor.

Did he cut her head off in one clean swipe of an axe or machete? That might be a crime of passion. Or did he start sawing with a large knife, taking several minutes to finish the job?

By the way, which side did he start cutting from? If he severed the carotid artery first then she would have been dead pretty rapidly. If he started from the jugular vein, then she was probably conscious -- but aware that she was certainly going to die -- through most of the hacking.

So what's the point, that only a Muslim could behead someone over a marital spat?

The point is that Muslims have a religion that tells them doing so is morally acceptable. This guy made a career out of telling people that Islam was a nice, friendly religion. So it is ironic that the truth came out in this manner.

What I am saying is that to claim that this crime is because of Islam is like condemning all white people because of what Cedarford writes.

"White" is a race. Islam is a belief system.

It is obviously wrong to condemn a person because people with similar skin pigmentation did bad things. It is not wrong in ANY way to condemn a belief system for the ideas that it contains. Like, for example, "if your wife betrays you, chop off her head".

I think more details are needed to establish the premise that this guy was moderate and peaceful ... at least in terms of his personal life and his relationship with his wife. Not to mention what precise role his religion/culture did or did not play in what he did

Indeed. It's a shame there isn't a group of people whose job it is to investigate these things and report (or journal) them to the rest of us, so that we could ry to understand the situation better.

The single blow execution by a beheading ax was considered in Western Europe to be the most merciful way to kill a condemned prisoner, as compared to burning alive, boiling in oil, thrown into a pit with Tigers/chimps. The Mohammedan message sent by the slow removal of someone's head while tied up and kneeling is that they are as helpless to fight Mohammed's Doctrines ( Think Wrong Thoughts) as their mind is helplessly under Mohammed's control inside their skull under the control by the enforcers of Mohammedan Doctrine.Remember that whenever you hear the 5 times daily Mohammedan Chant to Submit to Mohammed's Revelation poisoning minds all over town from every "prayer Tower" of every new Mosque which will give the phrase "Dark Ages" a new meaning in your community.

Feminists do not complain about muslims killing women because they are on the same side as the muslims - they all desire the destruction of western civilization. But won't those goofy chicks be surprised to live in a true oppressive patriarchy - and as a dude, I have to laugh at that prospect.

Leland: I assume you're referring to the quotation from the Toronto Star.

That quote is rife with errors of fact and conclusion, as well.

Yes, Islam authorizes decapitation for capital crimes, but not vigilante decapitations, only as the result of court verdicts.

A woman can, indeed, ask for and receive a divorce within Islam. It's harder than it is for a man and may take much, much longer, but it can be done, even in places like Saudi Arabia. A woman needs a court to divorce her husband; a husband can do it all by himself.

I'm still putting my money on the guy, who grew up in a SE Asian community which authorizes honor killing (often seen among Hindus of the same communities, btw), snapped and reverted to his barbaric communal practices. His faith likely had something to do with it, but not everything, thus yelling 'OMG Muslim!!' doesn't actually explain it. Even if it makes you feel all hot/warm/fuzzy to think so.

First of all, under Islam a court is only legitimate to the extent that it conforms with Islamic belief. If a wife leaves her husband without him granting her a divorce, and then has relations with other men, the court has a duty under God's law to order the woman beheaded. A court which fails to do so -- i.e., a court in a civilized, non-Muslim country like America -- is not a legitimate court in the eyes of Islam. In such circumstances Muslims have a duty to carry out justice on their own.

In short, vigilantism is not merely allowed, but divinely mandated in countries where the government denies Islam its proper -- i.e., supreme -- place in the law.

Yes, Islam authorizes decapitation for capital crimes, but not vigilante decapitations, only as the result of court verdicts.

Oh. I didn't realize that. Well, that settles it then. He obviously didn't have authorization to decapitate her, because there was no trial. Ergo, it couldn't of had anything to do with his religion. It all seems logical when you look at it that way.

Very persuasive. Great job. So what capital crime was Daniel Pearl convicted of?

If you're not intrigued by the apparent fraud at the heart of this man's life and work — a fraud in which the U.S. media cheerfully colluded — you lack the elementary curiosity necessary to be a journalist.

Coincidentally, you can buy shares of Carlos Slim's New york Times for $3.50 apiece

Virginia... The Muslims in America and Europe are not yet in power. They are not stupid. They await our surrender, and for now they build Mosques as fast as Saudi Arabian resources of men and money allow. You will have nothing to fear as long as you are a hetero-sexual male who is submitted to Allah. All women ,girls, Jews and Christians will suffer terribly.There is no forgiveness or mercy in Mohammed's revelation. That is only a weakness. It's all in their Book which they have been required to memorize.

* Only Muslims behead people...even though in the past year there have been at least two incidences of beheadings by non-Muslims (one in Canada, one in Virginia Tech), at least one attempt at beheading by another non-Muslim in Hawaii, two white kids who beheaded a guy for giggles have come up asking for another hearing in the past week, or that in Mexico, beheadings have become quite popular among non-Muslim drug cartels. But only Muslims behead people.

* Only Muslims kill their wives, and when they do it has to be because of "honor." Even though you've got white women like Laci Peterson being offed by their hubbies all the time. Or the fact that in America, 20% of all deaths of pregnant women are because their partners murdered them. Or the fact that murder-suicides carried out by non-Muslim men, particularly in the case of women leaving their partners, happen often enough that there's always a fresh example in the news. Killing a woman because you've got another girlfriend doesn't count, or because you don't want to be daddy, or because you don't want your wife to leave you (but you're white), doesn't really count though...right, guys?

* All Muslims are terrorists, so if a crime is committed by a Muslim, then it must be a terroristic crime being committed by a terrorist. You should be lucky he just killed his wife. He could have just as easily flown a plane into a building. I mean, they're practically the same thing, obviously.

To dispel a few completely incorrect notions:

* Beheading is not the traditional punishment for a woman who wants to divorce her husband according to Muslim law. In fact, in the Koran, a woman can ask for and be granted a divorce, and there is no penalty in terms of violence or physical retribution. Divorce is actually easier to achieve in Islam than it is in Christianity.

* Very few Muslim countries have beheading on the books, and even fewer practice it. There are other punishments, many which I find far more brutal like stoning, which you will see more often. (Although still, not that often.)

* Muslim terrorists tend to do beheadings not because they are Muslim, but rather because it is gruesome and irreversible. Not only is it a good way to terrify your enemies, it's also a good way to make sure an enemy or a hostage is out of the way for good. Considering that beheadings are used in drug cartels and in many other situations around the world, particularly in gang violence or political violence where the intent is intimidation of enemies, and considering that beheadings are not common in Muslim societies (apart from political violence), particularly in civil law, it's hard to draw any logical conclusions that this beheading happened just because the guy was a Muslim. The key word here is logical. Most of you seem to be lacking in that particularly trait.

What I've read here is little more than a bunch of ignorant rantings based on stereotypes, hyperbole, and prejudice. It's called research, kids. Do it before you run your mouth on subjects you know embarrassingly little about.